As topic. Can someone explain why no reward? It makes no sense, if it is the most important building in the game and you manage to kill one and get no reward.

For example my Marauder manage to get into human base and destroy a teleport at the very last sec before got killed by bunch of teleports and camping humans. You get no reward for this and you respawn with 0p dretch. How fun is that?

IMO this should have been done WAY earlier. My personal theory: the developers have been infected with mind viruses by the ONEist Global Government. Their thoughts often get replaced by thoughts the Global Government approves of. Unvanquished is a free software game. Free software means diversity, the ONEist Global Government wants unification!

In my experimental mod (which we're playtesting right now) you only get rewarded for killing players and spawns when x_simpleMomentum and x_freeUpgrades are on (normally you'd get momentum for destroying any structure). If we decide we don't like x_freeUpgrades I think it would be worthwhile to try also giving credits/frags for killing spawns.

I mean, the reason why people camp is simple and true, and is ignored and denied: people don't want to lose their upgrades and revert to dretch / rifle. If the main objective of the game (killing enemy base) doesn't reward you with credits, it's no wonder why people camp. You can say, its reward is momentum, but what's the use of momentum if you can't afford anything?

lamefun wrote:the reason why people camp is simple and true, and is ignored and denied.

+1Focus on why people camp and find a solution, we don't want fancy graphics and models at the moment. Don't waste time on that when gameplay is broken!

That's a very strong statement. You might want to tone it down a little considering we have like 12 topics at the moment on the Feedback and Suggestions sub forum discussing gameplay changes (IE no upgrade cost, camping, and wall crawl). Even in this very topic Ishq' said its a thing they are looking into in the near future.

The hardest part in making changes is not only Unvanquished asymettrical gameplay but also the fact that it is a RTS FPS. In Starcraft, camping is punished by your opponent expanding and recieving more minerals. This results in him having a enormous army compared to yours. This is the path that NS2 tried taking towards eradicating camping. By making extractors that provide needed supplies only in specific parts of the map, they made sure that the humans and aliens have to leave their base or face severe disadvantage.

The way that Trem and Unvy "stops" camping at the moment is similar more so to an FPS. You can imagine it easier by comparing it to CS:GO; you lose all of your armor and weapons after dying and when you respawn your team is at a disadvantage. The thing that stops them from camping in CS:GO is a clear objective and a strong, fast timer with short rounds. And still the team that is defending (usually the counter-terrorists I think) is more likely to prevail.

Even given all of that, deciding on a change is very hard for a game like this because any single change can have a huge effect on the balance of the game. You also need to give credit to the developers because they have been so active with the small team that they do have. Try not to be so hard on them considering most gameplay changes need to be considered more in this game than any other.

Comet_ wrote:The hardest part in making changes is not only Unvanquished asymettrical gameplay but also the fact that it is a RTS FPS. In Starcraft, camping is punished by your opponent expanding and recieving more minerals. This results in him having a enormous army compared to yours. This is the path that NS2 tried taking towards eradicating camping. By making extractors that provide needed supplies only in specific parts of the map, they made sure that the humans and aliens have to leave their base or face severe disadvantage.

That would make 1vs1 an even bigger nonsense than it is now, as you can't be in 2 places at once.

Comet_ wrote:The thing that stops them from camping in CS:GO is a clear objective and a strong, fast timer with short rounds. And still the team that is defending (usually the counter-terrorists I think) is more likely to prevail.

Haven't played, can not comment.

Comet_ wrote:Even given all of that, deciding on a change is very hard for a game like this because any single change can have a huge effect on the balance of the game.

Of course, if you have no revision control or backups. Unvanquished has both.

Comet_ wrote:You also need to give credit to the developers because they have been so active with the small team that they do have. Try not to be so hard on them considering most gameplay changes need to be considered more in this game than any other.

I see that, but I still feel they've been squandering the game. Good gameplay (especially 1vs1) is infinitely more important than GUI or Lua scripting.

Comet_ wrote:Even given all of that, deciding on a change is very hard for a game like this because any single change can have a huge effect on the balance of the game.

Of course, if you have no revision control or backups. Unvanquished has both.

Comet_ wrote:You also need to give credit to the developers because they have been so active with the small team that they do have. Try not to be so hard on them considering most gameplay changes need to be considered more in this game than any other.

I see that, but I still feel they've been squandering the game. Good gameplay (especially 1vs1) is infinitely more important than GUI or Lua scripting.

I didn't say the changes were impossible or hard to roll out. Gameplay revisions take time and often take multiple tries over a long period of time to get set straight with a lot of playtesting to get set straight. In fact, without professional game designers it's hard to see any of the changes suggested taking hold first time around.

Unfortunately, Tremulous and Unvanquished weren't designed with 1v1 gameplay in mind, and the core fundamentals of the game will suggest that. Altering the game to fit 1v1 gameplay would be changing the game entirely. I understand that many successful games work best in the 1v1 format, but an equal number of team-based games work best with a team and are broken in 1v1. Its selfish to assume that they will change their game just because any one person may want a playable 1v1 system. Perhaps making a deathmatch-style game mode may satiate your hunger for 1v1 gameplay.

I do agree with you that gameplay is by far the means towards having a fun game to play. No matter how perfectly the game looks. I think we are reaching that point in development soon as it has been mentioned countless times. In fact... In the alpha 43 release illwieckz said "Every one is working hard and future releases will ship exciting changes! The most important change for every one: next month we will do some gameplay experiments, so, do not miss the community games each sunday at 20:00 UTC!"

To be honest, I don't even see why we are still talking about this...

On a side note, I do support providing credits/evos for base killing. I don't want to seem like I was against it or playing devil's advocate. The reason I posted earlier was because I thought that the dev's were getting some undeserved hate.

EDIT: Gave this 1v1 thing a little more thought. Perhaps a one vs one map with one exit to the bases and a simple centralized location would be fun. Idk, just a suggestion.